We don't really have arrays in SQL Server.  I think your choices are to declare individual scalar variables (@ReplaceThis1, @ReplaceWith1, @ReplaceThis2, @ReplaceWith2, ...) but that also suffers from having to...

You could change your UPDATE statement so that you have lots of nested REPLACEs.  The drawback with that is that you'll need to change the code if you need to...

I think in the next version, there might be, but for now you'll need to find some way around it.  Do you not have SSMS?

John

Yeah, I get the same on 2014 Developer.  And I can't find any authoritative reference for the 100 row thing, either.  Hmmmm.

John

Yes, lack of statistics on table variables is likely to lead to inappropriate memory grants and inefficient plan choices.  Since SQL Server 2014, the query optimizer estimates the number of...

Try this:

WITH Factorials (Number, Factorial) AS (
    SELECT 1,       1 UNION ALL
    SELECT 2,       2 UNION ALL
    SELECT...

Absolutely.  I don't imagine the user is going to think any the worse of you if you tell him what you suspect the problem is but that you need to...

I can't explain why it runs quicker without the TOP 1000, but does he really need every column?  That must be an awful lot of data being dragged across the...

The only answer is to consult the documentation for the application, or raise a support call with the vendor.

John

Why don't use you just delete from the referencing table first?  Then you don't have to worry about disabling or enabling anything, and you can do it with little or...

Thom is right - a calendar table is the way to go.  You can use it again and again, and you can customise it with stuff like public holidays.  However,...